JUDGMENT : N.B. Suryawanshi, J. This Petition challenges the detention of the Petitioner vide order dated 11th April, 2019, issued under section 3(1) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-offenders and Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers and Persons Engaged in Black Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (for short 'the M.P.D.A. Act'). 2. Rule was granted in this matter vide order dated 9th July, 2019 which is made returnable and the matter is heard finally with the consent of parties. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned APP. The original file of the present case was made available by learned APP. With the assistance of learned counsel and learned APP, we have gone through the record. 4. The learned counsel for the Petitioner assails the detention order by invoking grounds (b), (d), (f) and (h). Since the Petition is liable to be allowed on the first ground, i.e., ground (b), we need not advert to the other grounds urged by the Petitioner. Ground (b) - There was no cogent material before the authority, which disclosed that the activities of the Detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 5. The learned counsel urged that though eight instances/cases filed against the Petitioner under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, are quoted, in not a single case, the Petitioner was found in possession of liquor. The action of detention is taken against the Petitioner on the ground that the Petitioner is a bootlegger. However, according to the learned counsel, there must be material to show that the activities of the Petitioner are prejudicial to the public order, in absence of which detention is unsustainable. 6. The learned APP, in reply, submits that there were eight offences registered against the Petitioner for contravention of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949, in which police seized approximately 685 litres of hath-bhatti liquor. Samples of the liquor found to contain 4% to 24% Ethyl Alcohol in water. An opinion was obtained from the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, V.M. Government Medical College, Solapur, which opined that, "the consumption of the Ethyl Alcohol is injurious to the human body which may cause death in case of excessive consumption". It is argued that the instances narrated by in-camera witnesses 'A' and 'B', disclose that due to the bootlegging activities of the Detenu, public order has been disturbed. It is argued that the instances narrated by in-camera witnesses 'A' and 'B', disclose that due to the bootlegging activities of the Detenu, public order has been disturbed. Further submission is that in terms of Explanation to section 2(a) of the M.P.D.A. Act, the activities of the Petitioner were causing harm, danger to the maintenance of the public order. Hence, the detention order is justified. 7. We are not reproducing the arguments of learned App on other points, since we are inclined to allow the Petition on ground 'b' only. 8. On going through the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has passed the impugned order mainly on the following grounds :- (a) The Petitioner is a habitual bootlegger and is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and eight prohibition cases are registered against him. (b) As per the statements of witnesses A and B, the Petitioner has created terror in the society. (c) The sample of the seized liquor contains Ethyl Alcohol in water and as per the opinion from the Department of Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, Dr. V.M. Government Medical College, Solapur that, "Consumption of Ethyl Alcohol in excessive amount is harmful to human body, which may cause death". 9. Perusal of record reveals that the detaining authority has relied upon the fact of registration of eight offences against the Petitioner under section 65(e), section 81 and/or section 83 of the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, 1949. Out of them four cases are already closed, due to lack of CA certificate and four cases are pending. Not a single serious offence is registered against the Petitioner, which shows that the Petitioner is involved in the offences like assault with weapons or terrorising people, which occasioned disturbance of public peace. Thus, the material is lacking which shows that the Petitioner is involved in the activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 10. Not a single serious offence is registered against the Petitioner, which shows that the Petitioner is involved in the offences like assault with weapons or terrorising people, which occasioned disturbance of public peace. Thus, the material is lacking which shows that the Petitioner is involved in the activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 10. We are of the considered view that though the detaining authority states that it has gone through all the material on record and it is subjectively satisfied that the Petitioner is a habitual bootlegger and that the chemical analysis report of the samples in the cases registered against the Petitioner shows that sample contains Ethyl Alcohol in water, the consumption of Ethyl Alcohol in excessive amount is harmful to human body, which may cause death, as per the opinion of the Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, this by itself does not reflect subjective satisfaction, without expressly commenting upon the correctness or otherwise of the objective assessment of prevailing situation by the detaining authority. 11. According to us, non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in recording subjective satisfaction in the present matter is apparent on the face of record. The detaining authority has erred in passing the detention order by ignoring the relevant facts like absence of material available on record to show that the activities of the Petitioner adversely affected or are likely to adversely affect the maintenance of public order. There is no material on record before the detaining authority to come to the conclusion that the activities of the Petitioner have caused harm, danger, alarm or feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life, property or public health as per the explanation to Section 3(4) of the M.P.D.A. Act. 12. There is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in ignoring the important requirement that there is no cogent material available before the detaining authority to show that the activities of the Petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of law and public order. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated for absence of material, on the basis of which the authority could come to the conclusion that the activities of the Petitioner are likely to be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order in future. The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority is vitiated for absence of material, on the basis of which the authority could come to the conclusion that the activities of the Petitioner are likely to be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order in future. Vague and general allegations are made in the grounds of detention and the absence of material that the Petitioner's activities are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, vitiates the impugned order. 13. Merely the fact that the Petitioner is a bootlegger is not sufficient to warrant the invocation of the provisions of the M.P.D.A. Act against the Petitioner. Mere possessing liquor also is not sufficient though in the facts of the present case, the Petitioner was not found in possession of the liquor at any point of time. But there is no material on record to show that the bootlegging activities of the Petitioner are prejudicial to the public order. The Petitioner can be effectively dealt with under the General Law, i.e., under the Maharashtra Prohibition Act, so far as his involvement in the liquor business is concerned and he is being dealt with. In this view of the matter, the invocation of provisions of the M.P.D.A. Act by the detaining authority was not warranted in the facts of the present case. Only because the consumption of Ethyl Alcohol in excessive amount is harmful to human body, which may cause death is the opinion given, it cannot be presumed that the Petitioner's activities are likely to prejudice the maintenance of public health in future. The detention in these facts under the M.P.D.A. Act is not warranted. 14. The learned counsel for the Petitioner was justified in placing reliance on the authority reported in in the case of Vithal Moreshwar Khandagale Vs. J. F. Riberio & Anr., 1982 CriLJ 1288, wherein it was held that, "Preventive detention under section 3 on the ground that detenu was dealing in contraband liquor in premises which were in vicinity of a factory, temples and school. There was no adequate material before the detaining authority to hold that activities of detenu adversely affected public order or members of public with reference to said institutions. The detention order was quashed and set aside". The ratio in the said authority is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. There was no adequate material before the detaining authority to hold that activities of detenu adversely affected public order or members of public with reference to said institutions. The detention order was quashed and set aside". The ratio in the said authority is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The detaining authority has failed to substantiate the said ground, even in the affidavit filed to oppose the present Petition. 15. Further reliance on behalf of the Petitioner in the case of Rashidmiya @ Chhava Ahmedmiya Shaik Vs. Police Commissioner, Ahmedabad & Anr., (1989) 3 SCC 321 is well placed. The Hon'ble Apex Court has considered the detention order of a bootlegger and had come to the conclusion that there should be material to show that the bootlegging activity of the detenu affected adversely or were likely to affect the maintenance of public order. Paragraphs 15, 16 & 17 of the said authority read as under :- "15. Hence we are of the view that the conclusions drawn by the detaining authority that the detenu is a dangerous person is bereft of sufficient material as required under Section 2(c). Therefore, we hold that the detenu cannot be termed as a 'dangerous person'. 16. No doubt as per Section 6 of the Act, grounds of detention are severable and as such the order of detention should not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative if one or some of the grounds are invalid. In the present case, the question for consideration is that even if the impugned order cannot be sustained on the ground that the detenu is a 'dangerous person', can it be sustained on the other ground that the detenu is a 'bootlegger'. The answer is that the order could be sustained, provided there are materials to show that the bootlegging activities of the detenu affected adversely or were likely to affect the maintenance of public order. A conjoint reading of Section 2(b) and Section 3(4) with the explanation annexed thereto clearly spells out that in order to clamp an order of detention upon a 'bootlegger' under Section 3 of the Act, the detaining authority must not only be satisfied that the person is a bootlegger within the meaning of Section 2(b) but also that the activities of the said bootlegger affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. Reverting to the facts of this case, the vague allegations in the grounds of detention that the detenu is the main member of the gang of Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Shaikh indulging in bootlegging activities and that the detenu is taking active part in such dangerous activities, are not sufficient for holding that his activities affected adversely or were likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order in compliance with sub-section (4) of Section 3 of the Act that the activities of the detenu have caused harm, danger or alarm or a feeling of insecurity among the general public or any section thereof or a grave or widespread danger to life, property or public health as per the explanation to Section 3(4). 17. The offences registered in the abovementioned four cases against the detenu on the ground that he was dealing in liquor have no bearing on the question of maintenance of public order in the absence of any other material that those activities of the detenu have adversely affected the maintenance of public order." The facts of the present case are similar to the facts in the abovementioned authority. 16. As far as in-camera statements of two independent witnesses are concerned, there are general allegations, which according to us, are not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the Petitioner has created terror in the locality, the public order is at risk at the instance of the Petitioner, people are afraid of the Petitioner and his colleagues and the Petitioner has terrorised the public at large. 17. The Petitioner may be punished for the alleged offences committed by him under general law but, surely, the acts constituting the offences cannot be said to have affected the even tempo of the life of the community. It may be that the Petitioner is a bootlegger within the meaning of section 2(b) of the Act, but he cannot be preventively detained under the provisions of the M.P.D.A. Act unless, as laid down in sub-section (4) of section 3 of the M.P.D.A. Act, his activities as a bootlegger affect adversely or are likely to affect adversely the maintenance of public order. 18. 18. In the light of the above discussion and the cases referred hereinabove, in our opinion, there is total non-application of mind on the part of the authority in passing the impugned detention order and the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed and set aside. Hence, the following order :- ORDER (a) The impugned detention order at Exhibit 'A' is quashed and set aside. (b) The Petitioner-Detenu be set free, if not required in any other case. (c) Rule made absolute in above terms, with no order as to costs.